Search

A shorter version of this was published today at AMI Newswire.A documentary opening Friday about how Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage has powered their political dynasty is the latest entree in a growing menu of politically charged, campaign-season films.Clinton Inc., scheduled to open in Chicago on Friday and around the country by mid-October, casts the Clinton marriage as an unusual arrangement that allows the couple to support each other’s separate political ambitions, and find ways to use their positions to enrich themselves along the way.Loosely based the 2014 book Clinton Inc. by Daniel Halper, a former Weekly Standard editor who now runs the Washington bureau of the New York Post, the film draws on interviews and archival footage to explore the psychological roots of Bill Clinton’s philandering. It argues that Hillary made herself and their marriage essential to his political career by enabling and covering up his affairs (a territory also explored in the Roger Stone book The Clintons’ War on Women).The documentary is part of a growing genre of influential and successful films that criticize contemporary politics and politicians. Peter Schweitzer, the author of a book on the Clinton Foundation, “Clinton Cash,” has produced a movie version of his book which anyone can be watched for free on the website of the conservative news outlet, Breitbart.

A chronicle, by means of interviews and archival footage, of the rise of the Clintons as a nascent political dynasty, Clinton Inc. builds a case that the Clinton marriage is basically an unusual arrangement where Bill and Hillary support each other’s separate political ambitions, and find ways to use their positions to enrich themselves along the way. Produced on a budget of $1.5 million, the movie is heavy on exploring the psychological roots of Bill Clinton’s philandering, and arguing that Hillary made herself and their marriage essential to his political career by enabling and covering up his affairs (a territory also explored in the Roger Stone book The Clintons’ War on Women) The film’s producer has released four different trailers on YouTube.

It’s not the first time an explosive documentary has been aimed at the Clintons during an election. Many have forgotten that the famous Supreme Court case Citizens United, decided in 2010, was also about a movie, another movie about the Clintons, Hillary: The Movie (2008). A political group, Citizens United, planned to air the movie on TV during the primaries, and Democrats went to court to prevent that, claiming it was advertising that should be regulated under campaign finance law. The Supreme Court struck down those aspects of laws regulating campaign finance, arguing that they violated the First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

Doug Sain, the producer of Clinton Inc. is no stranger to making political documentaries. Sain was the executive producer of the 2016: Obama’s America, which was the #1 documentary of 2012 (earning $33.5 million at the box office), the #2 political documentary of all time, and #5 documentary of all time for highest domestic gross box office. (It also came in second for the most DVDs sold for all movies during its home entertainment release week).

On a less elevated level than the Citizens United case, that Sain doc also ended up in court, with Sain suing his co-producer of 2016, conservative writer and activist Dinesh D’Souza. Sain claimed that his ownership should be increased from 25% to 50% and his production company should be paid additional fees for finding investors and other services.

The courts rejected Sain’s case, but he has a chance for a rematch of sorts. D’Souza went on to produce his own movie about one of the Clintons, Hillary’s America, released this past July. Starring Jonah Goldberg, an editor at National Review (a conservative rival to the Weekly Standard) and the son of Lucianne Goldberg, the PR pro who helped midwife the outing of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary’s America netted only $5 million at the box office. The tightening in the polls might create extra interest in Sain’s later release.

This election year is seeing a lot of free speech from filmmakers. Besides Sain’s and D’Souza’s Hillary movies, Peter Schweitzer, the author of a book on the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Cash, also produced a movie version of his book which anyone can watch for free on the web at another conservative news outlet, Breitbart. (In an echo of the 2008 Citizens United film release, a Clinton campaign spokesperson called in August for shutting down websites like Breitbart.)

A cable network could actually do a pre-election day marathon of campaign 2016 films. Donald Trump has also become fodder for filmmakers. Johnny Depp’s online mockumentary Donald Trump: The Art of the Deal, released in February, has had over 5 million visits on the Funny or Die, an entertainment industry community produced website which has many takedowns of the Trump candidacy. A relatively unknown film, One Nation Under Trump, was produced for $25,000 and released last month to bad reviews from the very few who saw it. And movies about Donald Trump as a public figure, not as a presidential candidate, have been produced every few years, going back to 1991’s Trump: What’s the Deal?

Not to be left out, a movie about Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s unprecedented independent challenge, Rigged 2016, with a $1 million budget provided by Overstock.com founder Patrick Byrne, a Johnson supporter, also comes out in October. And finally a movie somewhat aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement, IncarceratingUS, is available on line and is being shown at law schools, universities, and non-profit venues. (Hillary Clinton has a cameo she probably didn’t want, clapping for President Bill Clinton when he enacted mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes including non-violent drug offenses.)

Voters this year are despairing their electoral choices. Someone could organize a film festival for them for entertainment. Maybe throw in The Manchurian Candidate and Wag The Dog for levity.

Hillary Clinton is finally facing the sniper fire she “imagined” she caught in Bosnia as First Lady. Roger Stone’s The Clintons’ War on Womenis published today, on the day Hillary finally has to debate the other Democratic candidates – an ordeal the Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz have tried to spare her, by cutting down the number of debates from the 28 held in the 2008 primaries to only 6 this time around.

The book recounts the stories of about two dozen women, beginning with one of Bill Clinton’s college classmates, who have stepped forward to claim that President Clinton sexually assaulted them. Some of the women received settlements of hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of whom claim to have had their pets killed, their jobs terminated, their businesses audited by the IRS, their tires slashed, or to have received odd phone calls or queries from strange bypassing joggers about the health of their children.

That’s just the first 100 pages of the book, which with footnotes and bibliography runs to almost 500 pages. That only brings us up through Bill Clinton being elected President, and doesn’t even get us to Monica Lewinsky. Nor to Stone’s narrative on Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who he argues are also at war against women. Nor to tales of drug sales, money laundering, and other chicanery.

But it does raise a question: what kind of sociopath would actually have a child by a serial rapist? Or even by someone who seems to be routinely accused of sexual assaults?

According to Stone, Hillary Clinton’s sociopathy isn’t that deep. Chelsea Clinton is not Bill Clinton’s child, and has had extensive plastic surgery, both to make herself more attractive (were any First Children other than the Fords ever good looking?) and to make herself less the spitting image of her real dad, Web Hubbell. Stone’s co-author Robert Morrow asked Chelsea Clinton about this at a book signing this week. (Chelsea calmly answered him and is now being praised even by Hillary critics like Sean Hannity.)

But Hillary is implicated in the huge apparatus to manage and clean up Bill’s “messes,” something alluded to in the book and movie Primary Colors. Beginning with Arkansas state troopers who hushed up Clinton’s crimes when he was Governor, reported by then conservative journalist (and now on the Soros payroll and a Hillary flak) David Brock. (It’s funny to watch “progressives” like the New York Times Frank Rich argue that powerful people don’t use the police to persecute little people who might threaten their rise to power, in a year when the same “progressives” lionize the BlackLivesMatter movement that claims police routinely abuse the powerless.) Bill Clinton’s sexual appetites seem to require a staff to manage: volunteers, interns, and employees to be the objects of his lust; state troopers, White House lawyers, and PR flaks to pay off, intimidate, and smear them if they go public; and post-Presidency, billionaire friend Jeffery Epstein to provide young girls on private jets to secluded estates in the Virgin Islands.

(Coincidentally, about 14 years ago I went to a fundraiser for gay and lesbian Democrats thrown at the Georgetown home of a Clinton appointee. Bill Clinton had crowed about how he appointed more LGBT people than any president ever had, including Bruce Lehman, the first openly gay Assistant Secretary confirmed by the Senate, James Hormel, the first gay Ambassador, and Bob Hattoy, the first AIDS victim to speak at a Democratic National Convention. At the time I traveled socially with the LGBT Democratic crowd, selling some Clinton political appointees and staffers houses, and becoming close friends with mainly several of the lesbian LGBT Democrats.

The day after this particular fundraiser, an oddly affect-less bespectacled woman, the executive assistant to the Clinton appointee hosting the festivities, who had been at the event, called to ask if I would be available to go out with Mr. Appointee. I replied that if he managed to call me himself I would give him an answer. That may have been too uppity a reply, as I never got that call. I now wonder if not being able to manage your own social life without a staff was part of the Clinton regime’s culture. As we know from her emails, Hillary can’t drive, is unable to figure out a fax machine or an Ipad, and doesn’t know how to read TV guide. So perhaps like Hillary, Bill really needed assistance to manage his affairs.)

It’s a fascinating book about an unseemly topic. Stone (and co-author Robert Morrow) mention Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash as a companion volume; Stone says he is covering the non-financial crimes of the Clintons. Some fans of Schweizer’s book will no doubt think Stone is muddying the water with the Clinton’s un-drycleaned laundry. But Stone details how many courtiers cover up for the Clintons just to advance their careers, and how many major networks and national journalists have shelved or delayed stories about the women Bill is alleged to have assaulted and Hillary is alleged to have threatened, until after various elections or impeachment trials had been decided. So perhaps it’s really more a companion volume to Marc Leibovich’s fantastic book on D.C.’s political class, This Town. Maybe This Town: After Dark.

Washington, DC – PipeLineNews – Bill Clinton’s My Life memoir is being hawked as part confessional and part policy tome. I had hoped that, at least as far as the historical reflections on terrorism and his eight-year presidency was concerned, it would at least be partly factual.

Instead, “My Life,” which The New York Times described as, “sloppy, self- indulgent and eye-crossingly dull” is at odds with the record as it is developing. The book contradicts the findings of the Sept. 11 commission, Clinton’s own prior admissions on a myriad of issues and, using my own knowledge of his administration’s dealings – or lack thereof – with the Sudanese regarding Osama bin-Laden case.

I know the last point to be true because I witnessed it firsthand.

In 1996, I became what Vanity Fair magazine called in January 2002, the bin-Laden case’s “accidental emissary,” because I ended up in the position of shuttling between the FBI and representatives of the Sudanese intelligence service.

This was not a role I sought; rather, it all came about because I was in Sudan trying to arrange to bring its ancient treasures from the Meroe pyramids – known as the Gold of Queen Amanishakhete – to the United States for a public tour.

Queen Amanishakhete lived during Sudan’s Kush period, in 4th century B.C. At the end of the 19th century, European explorers uncovered artifacts to what may be the world’s most powerful matriarchal dynasties, which is what drew me to Sudan initially.

What kept me coming back was trying to stop Osama bin-Laden.

Gutbi el Mahdi, the chief of Sudanese intelligence, had placed bin-Laden and all his guests under close surveillance when they began developing close ties with known Egyptian terrorist groups.

Gutbi personally read every fax, phone transcript and daily report on activities where bin-Laden was concerned.

When the Clinton administration demanded that Sudan expel bin-Laden – which took place on May 18, 1996 – the Sudanese knew that a refusal to cooperate could have dire consequences. The demand for expulsion had first been raised in early 1996 by U.S. Ambassador Tim Carney, a respected career diplomat.

On Carney’s last night in Sudan – Feb. 6, 1996 – he was invited to the home of Foreign Minister Ali Osman M. Taha, who asked Carney what could be done to dissuade the United States from its hard-line view on Sudan.

It was at this dinner that a substantive discussion between the two countries on terrorism occurred. This resulted in the Sudanese government beginning, for the first time, to consider handing Osama bin-Laden over to the U.S. authorities.

Seeking to pursue this option, the Sudanese sent their State Minister of Defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, to Washington in March 1996.

Erwa believed he could reason with the administration. At a hotel in Rosslyn, Va., just across the river from Georgetown, he participated in a meeting with David Shinn, chief of the State Department’s Africa Desk, Carney and other U.S. government officials.

Unfortunately, they were not – as Erwa hoped – willing to listen. Instead, they handed him a memorandum dated March 8, 1996, that outlined a list of U.S. demands of the Sudanese.

Item No. 2 on the list was a demand for information about bin-Laden.

Intead, Erwa offered to hand bin-Laden to the United States on a silver platter – just as the Sudanese had done when the gave Carlos the Jackal to the French – but the representatives of the United States told Erwa the United States only wanted bin-Laden out of Sudan.

Clinton himself confirmed this on Feb. 15, 2002, while speaking in Woodbury, N.Y. Asked about terrorism, Clinton said: “We tried to be quite aggressive with (terrorists). We got — uh — well, Mr. bin-Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, and then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

“They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.”

After the United States bombed Sudan’s only pharmaceutical plant, El Shifa, in August of 1998 in response to the leveling of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by al-Qaida, I flew to Khartoum with Dr. Bob Arnott, then the chief medical correspondent for NBC.

We landed in Khartoum with a German cameraman, an Egyptian soundman and plenty of questions for the Sudanese about Clinton’s accusations that El Shifa was a chemical weapons facility with connections to bin-Laden.

We found that the United States had fired six cruise missiles at the El Shifra facility. One hit the administration building, one the loading dock, one the bottling plant, one the storeroom, one the hallway and one was a dud.

The plant was still burning when we arrived. Surveying the damage, Sudanese Interior Minister Abdul Rahim M. Hussein said to us: “It is amazing what America can do. I wish we could do this, we might be able to end our civil war, but we can’t fight this. Mr. Clinton could kill every Sudanese and we could do nothing to stop him.”

Days before the two U.S. embassies in Africa were destroyed, two men deplaned from Kenya Air Flight 322, traveling between Nairobi and Cairo, when it landed in Khartoum. Gutbi had the two men watched because they used the name of bin-Laden’s former tannery manager as the reference on their visa applications.

Gutbi had them followed and, when they attempted to rent an apartment overlooking the empty U.S. Embassy in Khartoum, had them arrested.

During their interrogations, the Sudanese learned the men were Afghan Arabs traveling on illegal Pakistani passports who had just come from the Hilltop Hotel in Kenya, where the operatives who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi had stayed. The men were carrying lots of cash and their passports were full of stamps indicating they had been in and out of the world’s major banking centers.

All the pieces fell into place, Gutbi told me later, after the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were demolished. He called me and said, “Tell your people we have something for them but they have to go to Khartoum to get it.”

By “your people,” he meant only one thing, the FBI.

I contacted an agent who, coincidentally enough, had been selected for the team being sent to Nairobi to investigate the embassy bombings. He said he would “run it up the flagpole.” He wanted more details, specifically what I thought the message really meant. I could only tell him that the head of Sudanese intelligence didn’t call me everyday. It had to be something “big,” because Gutbi had risked a phone call.

In spite of the rather cryptic invitation, the FBI was eager to go to Khartoum, my agent contact said, because its objective was to follow every lead and bring the terrorists to justice.

The effort ground to a halt, however, when – unbelievably – the U.S. State Department refused to permit the FBI to travel to Khartoum.

It was not one of the United States’ brighter moments.

FBI Director Louis Freeh was on the outs with the Clinton White House because he had pushed ahead with an investigation of campaign fundraising. No one in the administration was going to go out on a limb for the FBI.

Shortly after the request was denied, Secretary of State Madeline Albright declared, “We do not deal with terrorists,” publicly referring the Sudanese who were, at that time, on the department’s list of state terror sponsors.

Gutbi held onto the two al-Qaida members in his custody while others in the government would not let him engage in an attempt to hand them over to the United States directly. They remained in Sudanese custody until Sept. 4, 1998, when they were handed over to the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service, at the Karachi airport.

Gutbi later found them – this time well out of reach – in bin-Laden’s Afghan terrorist training camps.

The next time he and I met it was after I finished work in Kazakhstan. He told me about the embassy bombing suspects, showed me the files compiled during their interrogations, and let me examine a virtual treasure trove of other information in the hands of the Sudanese pertaining to al-Qaida.

“I can give these to the FBI,” Gutbi told me referring to the information spread out before me, “if only they will talk to me.”

“We don’t trust the CIA. They are listening to liars and fabricators, but the FBI is based on law. We can deal with them. Go back to Washington and help us. I will give you something to convince them,” he said.

As I left for the airport that night, an armed courier arrived at my hotel with an envelope. Inside was a six-page, handwritten note to FBI Director Louis Freeh detailing the movements of the two suspects they’d caught coming in from Nairobi. He told Freeh their names, movements, and much more — information that could possibly get me killed if anyone else knew I had it in my possession.

I met with my “people,” as the Sudanese continued to call them, at the FBI. They told me they again wanted to meet with the Sudanese. From January through May of 1999, I shuttled Washington, Khartoum and Cairo, trying to arrange the meeting.

In May – while in Khartoum putting the last pieces in place – I received word from the FBI that the State Department had stopped the meeting. What’s more, the U.S. Department of the Treasury had previously issued a “cease and desist” order with my name on it, commanding that I cease all contact with the Sudanese government.

Additionally, Steven Schwartz, of the State Department’s Sudan Desk, acting – I was told – on orders from above, threatened to have me arrested for “running around the world conducting personal diplomacy.”

That summer I gave up. I’d been run ragged but no one seemed to believe me. Soon afterward Gutbi moved on to a different, more senior position within the Sudanese government, putting an end to the urgency of the whole thing.

I was advised to forget the whole thing and, until Sept. 11, 2001, I tried.

After the planes hit the towers, it all came racing back in one phone call from a staff aide working for the Bush National Security Council. Diligently – in my view – they were digging under every rock they could find for information about al-Qaida. They had reached out to me because, I thought, they wanted help getting the bin-Laden files that had several times been offered to but not accepted by the previous administration.

The aide had no idea what I was talking about when I said, “Finally, someone cares. So, do you want the bin-Laden files?” My name had only surfaced because of the Treasury Department’s attempt to sanction me for dealing with the Sudanese government, not because of what those dealings had been about.

Incredibly, in my view, the information from the Clinton White House about the Sudanese offers of information about al-Qaida had not been passed along to the incoming Bush administration.

I told my story yet again to the Bush aide, who thanked me for my time and input. This time, however, the government acted – and swiftly.

Only minutes later, the phone rang again. This time it was Ambassador Robert Oakley, the head of the counter terrorism office inside the State Department. He introduced himself and said, “I understand you may be able to help us.”

I said I would call the new head of the Sudanese intelligence service, Yahia Hussein Babiker, and attempt to persuade him to call Oakley, since official U.S. protocol prohibited Oakley from reach out to the Sudanese government.

Less than an hour after I hung up with Yahia , my phone rang again. It was Oakley. “I called to thank you,” he told me. “I think we may be on the right track with this.” Almost before I could say anything, my cell phone rang. It was Yahia, calling to tell me that he had done as I had asked.

Oakley laughed and said, “In my 40 years in government I don’t think I’ve met anyone quite like you. I know I’ve never met anyone so efficient.”

If only that were true. It had taken five years for me to get someone, anyone at the higher levels of the U.S. government to take the Sudanese offer of assistance seriously. And I know because, as I said at the beginning, I was there throughout the process. Even today I can’t let go of the images of people trapped in the towers and wonder if I could have done more. Rightly or wrongly I carry with me the thought of “what if.”

Clinton’s book tells a different story, one that I do not recognize. And nowhere close to what I witnessed, firsthand, as a participant in the events as they occurred. I can only conclude that Clinton did not tell the American people the truth about what happened with the Sudanese — he probably didn’t tell the Bush administration the whole truth either. And I sincerely doubt he feels my pain.

(Janet McElligott is president of McElligott Associates, an international consulting company. She served on the staff of three members of the U.S. Senate and on the White House staff in the administration of George H.W. Bush. In 1997, she was a registered foreign agent for the Sudanese government and in 1998 for the government of Kazakhstan. She most recently served as spokeswoman for the Intergovernmental Governmental Agency for Development-sponsored Sudan Peace talks.)

Most people don’t realize how pervasive the fascism spawned by anti-discrimination laws like Fair Housing go. Under Bill Clinton, HUD Secretary Roberta Achtenberg issued a list of words realtors, lenders and others involved in the housing market were censored from saying on penalty of losing their licenses and livelihoods and being fined. (This is what they spent their time on while causing the housing bubble that led to economic collapse.) The list of dozens of words included such terms as “multicultural” and “bohemian,” anything that might even come close to describing the demographics of a neighborhood. It also included any terms related to the senses or physical abilities, since it is illegal to discriminate against the differently abled. One cannot describe a property for sale or rent in terms of its good views or its short walk to amenities.

And you can’t tell other realtors how to make an appointment with any term that might be construed as discriminatory, say against deaf mute realtors. Here’s a notice to a realtor about a new listing from the local multiple listing system, produced by a corporation that is also subject to diversity censorship. The offensive terms are highlighted in bold. It is illegal to suggest that another realtor “call” you. One assumes the word “contact” will satisfy them, though if they knew their Latin roots we might worry that that does discriminate against realtors missing digits, limbs, or nervous systems.

** Notice: Please Review Your MLS Listing for Compliance **

Your MLS listing is not in compliance with the MLS Rules and Regulations. Please take a look at this notice and update your listing. If it is not corrected by the grace date indicated, you will be assessed a fine.The most value that MRIS can offer its subscribers is the accuracy of the data in our database; therefore data integrity is priority number one for us. We want to ensure that the data you are using from the MRIS database – and passing on to your customers – is as accurate and timely as it could possibly be. For this reason we audit listings to ensure compliance with MRIS Rules & Regulations.

Listing Details

ML#:

DC8093097

Address:

2100 19TH Unit 805WASHINGTON, DC 20009

Notification#

Notification Details

3639956

Grace Date 11:00PM:

06/05/2013

Rules & Regs.#:

Article XI, Sect 21.

Violation Name:

Inappropriate Direction Info

Description:

The Directions field of the above listing contained impermissible information. You will see these words highlighted in red on your notice or the click here for further details link. Please remove the information to avoid fines.

Instructions:

Please remove the inappropriate information. You will see these words highlighted in red on your notice or the click here for further details link.